No Take Fishing Zone forming along Palos Verdes?

[drbill]

I'm not sure if they are defining MPAs differently in NZ, but here an MPA is simply a marine protected area. They've been around in California waters since the beginning of the 20th century (1913 is the earliest one I remember). Ballantine's Goat Island reserve is not only an MPA but a no-take reserve as I understand it.

We have had marine and wildlife sanctuaries in New Zealand for decades but specifically "MPA's" are very new to NZ.

 

[drbill]

Most sportsmen will not take illegal game. However, that is assuming they are allowed to take, at least, some game. Shut it down totally to all fishing......and watch what happens! This is stupid. Enough areas are closed to fishing now. What needs to happen is a "reduction in fish take." Who catches the most, "commercial guys." Start there. Why do we let the commercial fishing industry drive our fish stocks down into oblivion and then stop "everyone" from fishing? Personally, I think it is just easier to address the problem this way. Kind of like a worthless school teacher keeping "all" the kids in from recess instead of just addressing the problem child. Not guts! Go ahead. Ban the whole state to fishing. I dare you. I hope you do. And while we are at it, letÃÔ ban all boats for the ocean too-IÃÎ sure they cause some scientific, statistical harm too. Better yet, letÃÔ just ban the whole damn thing to anything and anyone. Stay out of the ocean. I donÃÕ want you there.

I agree that most good fishermen won't take illegally, but there are still plenty that will. I've seen it here for decades.

No one is proposing closing all of the state waters. I agree that would not be fair. However, you need to understand the concept of marine reserve networks and how they work. You need multiple reserves spread out in ways that make ecological sense to not only preserve the fish and inverts within them, but to restock the outside unprotected areas to improve fishing.

Even those fishers taking fish legally add up to numbers that have high impact, higher in some cases than the commercial fishers. I've given examples in my three part column. Your analogy of punishing the entire class for the behavior of one student doesn't quite hold up. Everyone who takes shares to some extent in the problem... it is cumulative.

 

[White Knight]

Dr Bill, I went diving two weekends ago at Cathedral in the Anacapa reserve. I am told it is one of the oldest protected areas in the state. Took some pictures, saw some big lobsters, a "few" sheep head, and no cod! Not one Ling, not a single halibut, not a single fish I would spear—had it been legal. I guess I'm just not seeing it....

As far as the cumulative effect. Again, I ask to quantify it. Commercial fishing adds 80%, rod and real adds 15%, and spear fishing adds 5%. Disagree anyone? Surely scientific studies that profess the closing of so much California water to the general population, simply hoping to catch a fish, have quantified it? Surely they have? Right?

As far as my school teacher analogy, yes, I believe it to be a fair portrayal of the situation with our fish stocks. It’s simply easier to close down all the reefs and productive waters than say, “you can only catch this much” or “no commercial halibut or cod fishing in these waters” etc. As I have said in the past, I respect the passion of you and everyone else attempting to bring back our fish stocks. However, I do disagree with your technique and I do not believe it will work.

Again, I live in Santa Barbara County. I’ll be a good sport and abide by the rules and regulations as long as I can, but if you succeed in shutting down every single reef ( leaving only mud bottomed ocean for me to fish) along the coast line to fishing of any kind, then I may be forced to fall from grace. You can take some of it away, you can take a lot of it of it away, but don’t try to take it all away—it won’t work. Look at the maps real hard in Santa Barbara County area. Tell me which reefs are not being considered to be closed to fishing? And if only one reef is left open, what is going to happen to it when it remains as the “only” place available for “everyone” to fish?

This whole notion is counterproductive. Control the catch for as many people as possible. How can the habitats and fish stocks be managed to provide enjoyment to as many people as possible on a sustained basis? Reducing the overall fish catch will do this. And you do it by curtailing the largest offenders first. “Then” you work your way down the food chain until the problem is resolved.

 

[Codyjp]

Dr Bill, I went diving two weekends ago at Cathedral in the Anacapa reserve. I am told it is one of the oldest protected areas in the state. Took some pictures, saw some big lobsters, a "few" sheep head, and no cod! Not one Ling, not a single halibut, not a single fish I would spearÍÉad it been legal. I guess I'm just not seeing it....As far as the cumulative effect. Again, I ask to quantify it. Commercial fishing adds 80%, rod and real adds 15%, and spear fishing adds 5%. Disagree anyone? Surely scientific studies that profess the closing of so much California water to the general population, simply hoping to catch a fish, have quantified it? Surely they have? Right? As far as my school teacher analogy, yes, I believe it to be a fair portrayal of the situation with our fish stocks. ItÃÔ simply easier to close down all the reefs and productive waters than say, ÅÚou can only catch this much or ÅÏo commercial halibut or cod fishing in these waters etc. As I have said in the past, I respect the passion of you and everyone else attempting to bring back our fish stocks. However, I do disagree with your technique and I do not believe it will work. Again, I live in Santa Barbara County. IÃÍl be a good sport and abide by the rules and regulations as long as I can, but if you succeed in shutting down every single reef ( leaving only mud bottomed ocean for me to fish) along the coast line to fishing of any kind, then I may be forced to fall from grace. You can take some of it away, you can take a lot of it of it away, but donÃÕ try to take it all awayÍÊt wonÃÕ work. Look at the maps real hard in Santa Barbara County area. Tell me which reefs are not being considered to be closed to fishing? And if only one reef is left open, what is going to happen to it when it remains as the ÅÐnly place available for ÅÆveryone to fish? This whole notion is counterproductive. Control the catch for as many people as possible. How can the habitats and fish stocks be managed to provide enjoyment to as many people as possible on a sustained basis? Reducing the overall fish catch will do this. And you do it by curtailing the largest offenders first. ŵhen you work your way down the food chain until the problem is resolved.

We must be looking at different maps. The one I'm looking at only shows 2 protected areas near Santa Barbara. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_030309n6ii.pdf (thanks for the link Shoupart) Can you please provide the map that you are referencing?

Also please attempt to organize any future thoughts into paragraphs. I think you will find it a much more effective way to communicate your ideas.

PS on an off note subject, are you involved with Scaled Technologies? I was just wondering since your name is the same as one used on one of their aircraft. If not, please disregard!

 

[spoolin01]

You've GOT to be kidding. The major lobbying is being done by the commercial and recreational fishing interests, not the no-take people. Get a grip on reality.

50% would be a very fair recommendation. However it is not politically expedient and most likely no more than 30% of the coastline will end up protected. Why can't the fishing interests accept 70% instead of demanding 100%.

There are already two case studies of 'reality' on record - they suggest your assessment of who pays the politicians is fanciful. There won't be 70%, less than 50% of shallow habitat open to fishing, if it goes like in the Central and North Central zones. (The deep habitat is 100% closed to recreational fishing the entire length of the state, for years now). The no-fishing zealots are paying the bills and stacking the deck, e.g. Sutton. Anyone who cares whether this nativist juggernaut squashes their fishing tradition had better speak up, loudly and often. It won't be a deliberative process.

 

[White Knight]

CODYJP: Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. Yes, you are looking at the same map I am. On that map I speak of Pt Conception, Tajiguas, Refugio, Devereux, Goleta and Carpinteria. Essentially, these encompass every single kelp reef along the coast. What is left (even though it looks like a lot) is nothing more than mud. Come on up, I'll take you diving on my boat. We can visit your choice of areas "not" on the closure list. It won't matter, it will all look the same--all mud.

Lastly, no relation to Scaled Technologies--sorry..

Thanks for the feedback

 

[spoolin01]

CODYJP: Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. Yes, you are looking at the same map I am. On that map I speak of Pt Conception, Tajiguas, Refugio, Devereux, Goleta and Carpinteria. Essentially, these encompass every single kelp reef along the coast. What is left (even though it looks like a lot) is nothing more than mud. Come on up, I'll take you diving on my boat. We can visit your choice of areas "not" on the closure list. It won't matter, it will all look the same--all mud.

Lastly, no relation to Scaled Technologies--sorry..

Thanks for the feedback

Right, and what happens when those closed high quality habitats make better fish than the open and now-hammered marginal stuff? Close it all! A great deal of habitat is already either closed to or little-accessed by recreational fishermen. Closure of popular reefs to recreational fishing is not vital to fisheries management. It is vital to eviscerating the fishing tradition.

 

[drbill]

Not sure where you are getting your info spoolin01... doesn't match at all with what I know as far as lobbying money, effort, etc.

As for closures, look at the record in the areas already dealt with under the MLPA. You won't find closure levels anywhere near what you claim.

As for marine reserves working... plenty of existing case studies globally to prove the point. However, the best proof is the constant fishing effort I see just outside (or even IN) some of the few protected areas that now exist. What better evidence can you ask for? Fishermen know where the fish are... at least the ones they haven't taken already.

Anyone who even suggests that our waters haven't been overfished is simply using a baseline that is far too recent to be of any value in assessing the real health of the ecosystems. I spoke at length yesterday with a man who has been fishing Catalina waters since the 1920's. You should hear his stories about how the fishing was back then compared to now. He has a much better baseline to draw the comparisons. My baseline only goes back 40 years here and even I see the differences between then and now.

 

[Codyjp]

Dr. Bill, you've provided a very valid point regarding the quality of the fish being produced by our coastlines.

What people need to keep in mind is that 'fishing tradition' refers to people fishing from hollowed out canoes to feed their families who lived in huts. This just isn't the case anymore. I have a hard time believing that the majority of fishermen are doing so to feed themselves and their families as the primary objective.

It would also be interesting to see a study done on the effectiveness of modern fishing equipment compared to what was used 100 years ago.

 

[Dan Chua]

While I like the idea of MPAs and very limited no take areas, and have seen the healthy reefs of the existing no take reserves, these areas simply make no sense for pelagic and migratory fish like yellowtail, whiteseabass, and halibut etc. For less or non-migratory species like rockfish and lobsters, to a certain extent, it would seem to make sense. But then why close the whole area to all methods of take for all species? Why not try a better management method? Like reducing bag limits, having slot limits on size, regulating the take methods better (see gill nets and whiteseabass for an excellant example).

Whiteknight is right when he talks about the areas the MPAs are looking to close. There are only so many prime reef areas that constantly hold prized game fish. These areas are heavily targeted for the MPAs and while I'm all for conservation and compromise, it's unfair to close these areas to methods of fishing that won't significantly benefit the health of the MPA because the species are migratory.

One further point to make, is that I believe the MPA process is significantly funded by the Packard Foundation. There are many issues with process and the outcome. How is the DFG going to fund these reserves, prove scientifically that they are working, provide regulation and oversight, police the areas etc. with the budget issues the state already has?

I love to eat seafood, and about 90% of what I eat I catch. I think that anyone that eats seafood and fish from any where in the world and wants to ban fishing completely is a hypocrite. What's going to happen when a person can't go out and get food for themselves without the grocery store? What about the huge economic impact recreational fishing has on our coastal towns?

I'll tell you where all of our enviromental problems emanate from: over population. No one seems to be talking about the biggest problem facing the world today. I don't have the answer, but we better figure it out soon because solving that one problem probably solves a lot of our other problems.

Anyways, that's rant. Anyone with a significant feeling one way or another should get involed in the process.

Dan